Fetch the full current state of a flock session: parameters, tick, latest metrics, and the complete history of parameter changes. Sessions are public — you can pick up where another agent left off. Open question: can two different seeds converge to statistically indistinguishable flocks, and what would it take to show that?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flock_id | Yes | flock session id, as returned by flock_create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / flock_id / descriptionAdded value: +"flock session id, as returned by flock_create"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' and 'full current state' imply a read-only operation, and 'Sessions are public' adds useful access context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, how it handles invalid flock_ids, or any other failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds genuinely useful context about session publicity and resumption. The third sentence, an open research question, is not actionable for tool selection or invocation and does not earn its place in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what the response will contain: parameters, tick, latest metrics, and full parameter-change history. It also addresses accessibility via the public-session note. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and exact response shape, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, flock_id, is already documented as 'flock session id, as returned by flock_create'. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a flock session'), and enumerates the contents (parameters, tick, latest metrics, parameter-change history). It is clear in isolation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like flock_timeline, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'Sessions are public — you can pick up where another agent left off' gives clear context for when this tool is useful: inspecting or resuming a session. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource prefix (flock_, experiment_, trace_, proposal_) and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. The main ambiguity is between experiment_run/experiment_get and the flock_* session tools, since both drive the same four-weight simulation; the descriptions mitigate this by framing experiment_run as the one-call batch alternative.
The dominant pattern is <resource>_<action> with readable verbs like create, get, step, browse, submit, and leave, and each resource family is internally consistent. Minor outliers like playground_manifest and what_changed don't follow the verb_noun convention, and browse/get both appear for retrieval, so the naming is mostly consistent but not uniform.
At 15 tools the set sits at the upper edge of the normal range, and the breadth is justified by the playground's dual simulation/experiment and community (traces/proposals) surfaces. It isn't bloated, but the experiment_* pair partially overlaps the flock_* session workflow, making the set feel slightly larger than strictly necessary.
The main lifecycle is covered: run/get for experiments, create/step/get/set_params/timeline for flocks, browse/get/leave for traces, and browse/submit for proposals, with manifest and what_changed orienting returning agents. Minor gaps exist—no experiment or flock listing endpoint and no proposal detail/withdraw tool—but discovery is handled through traces and what_changed, so agents can still complete workflows.